It's Friday, FRIDAY!!!

It’s that special time of year - Black Friday (well, it was yesterday). The shops are guarded with trembling blue-shirts who unlock the gates to consumption, knowing that this could be the year they die. People who usually wouldn’t communicate come together, get close and bash each other’s skulls in for the best deal possible. Of course, Black Friday is not the best time to get discounts and items on sale. That would be months later when stores are trying to get rid of their surplus merchandise. Is that really the point? No. The point is to run the gantlet with the rest of the drooling, subhuman half-people in an attempt to get toys, appliances and technology that will be obsolete next year. Ensuring their chances at first place, members of the Black Friday cult even camp out over a week in advance.

Earlier this week I was watching the local news as they reeled the camera towards the smiling, idiotic faces of people camping outside of Best Buy. My first thought was “Don’t they have jobs?” and “Obviously the don’t! Why aren’t they looking for jobs? They’re just sitting there!” Of course, looking for a job would get in the way of securing a new iPhone or plasma screen TV. Who needs to work when these things can be paid for with EBT cards? 

The too boisterous for six o’clock in the morning reporter interviewed one of the breathing pods waiting in line. When asked what they were doing for necessities, the woman said they were having food brought in from family members. She went on to say they were using a near-by Starbucks bathroom. I’ve had to clean plenty of bathrooms and it’s disgusting enough during regular business hours. I can’t count how many toilet seats and bathroom floors I’ve encountered that were covered in urine, feces, vomit, menstrual blood, used condoms and tampons. Men and women in the general public could richly benefit from target practice. Can you imagine hundreds of people aimlessly defecating in a room the size of a large closet every day for almost two weeks? I wouldn’t be surprised if they threw away the mop and used a fire hose to clean it out. 

If vacant minded consumerism and a misfired mountain of excrement were the only factors of Black Friday this article would have been over by now. What really marks this day of days is the intense level of violence that goes along with it. This is especially nice for me. Year after year something happens to people on Black Friday that drives them to act on their primordial brain stem, crunch each other’s skulls to the linoleum floor and reaffirm my conviction that humanity is nothing more than a debased animal suffering from delusions of grandeur. In fact, past Black Friday’s have been so chaotic and violent that OSHA (Occupational Heath & Safety Administration) had to issue a manual of safety guidelines to retailers. I’m assuming retailers were targeted because they knew the actual customers don’t read. The guidelines listed are so self-explanatory they border on being satire. Here’s one tip from OSHA:

“When the store reaches maximum occupancy, do not allow additional customers to enter until the occupancy level drops.”

What truly makes this piece of advice so fantastic isn’t that someone thought about it, put it on paper and issued it to the public; it’s that somewhere, at some time, there existed a store that failed to make this rationalization. Though this is magnificently doltish, it’s not too surprising. Human idiocy knows no limit. I’m sure somewhere in the world someone is trying to start a car with a baked potato. 

Mayhem of the Past

Perhaps the most publicized story of Black Friday is that of Jdimytai Damour, a 34 year old seasonal Walmart employee in Valley Stream, NY who was trampled to death in 2008. A crowd of roughly two thousand mongoloid nerve-blobs rushed the freshly parted doors, knocking down Mr. Damour along with other employees. Police reviewed the surveillance tapes, but found the task of proving a guilty party too difficult from a legal standpoint. Some people even tried to say it was an accident. If someone’s face was under the heel of my boot, I’m pretty sure I’d know. Then again, I actually pay attention when things are happening around me. 

During a 2010 Black Friday Phillip Duggan, a 24 year old marine at the time, was doing a Toys for Tots drive with other marines and volunteers at an Augusta, GA Best Buy. At the same time another man, Tracey Attaway, concealed a laptop in his jacket. Store surveillance cameras spotted him. Attaway freaked, dropped the laptop and bolted when he was confronted. Duggan clotheslined Attaway during his attempted escape and got stabbed in the back for his troubles. Attaway was charged with armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a knife in the commission of a crime. All that and he couldn’t even get the laptop out the front door. 

In 2011 a woman outfoxed other shoppers by pepper spraying them. This happened at a Walmart in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles, CA. There were between 10 - 20 people who got a face full of spray. After vanquishing the enemy, she was able to pay for her merchandise and leave the store before the police arrived. She turned herself in one day later, but the police didn’t release her name, saying that the matter was still under investigation. As far as I know, she has not been charged with a crime. 

In 2011 a horde of people rioted for waffles. At a Walmart near Little Rock, AR a video of frenzied specimens fighting for $2.00 waffle makers was shot and uploaded to the internet. If you watch the video, try unfocusing your vision slightly. The crowd appears to be a gathering of half-human, half-sloth creatures engaged in a greasy orgy.  

In 2011 a person was shot in San Leandro, CA in a Walmart parking lot. He and his family had just finished their Black Friday shopping when they were approached by a small group who demanded that the family surrender their purchases. When the family refused, a fight ensued and one of the attempted robbers pulled out a gun and shot one of the family members. The shoppers managed to wrestle one of the assailants to the ground and held him there until police arrived. The rest of his crew fled the scene. If there’s no such thing as a free lunch, what made the robbers think there would be a free Xbox?

Yet again, in 2011, shoppers in Soho New York smashed the doors of a Hollister clothing store and began looting. Apparently, someone said the store opened at midnight and everyone else was stupid enough to believe them. When the store didn’t open and those trendy jeans stared back at the crowd through the windows, it was all a feeble mind could take. The crowd broke through the doors and released their inner slopsucker. 

Highlights from 2012

This year was not without it’s own incidents, which can always be expected when empty eyes set their sights on shiny objects. Interestingly enough, many stores are beginning Black Friday on Thursday, leading to terms such as “Black Thursday” and “Ex-giving.” Time truly makes fools of us all. A day that was once intended to give thanks for the things you have is now a day for bashing another person’s face to get what you want. I wonder what Christmas will be like in ten years?

Dumb People Riot for Smart Phones - Shoppers in a Moultrie, GA Walmart shove and knock each other down for phones. Watching the video makes me want to throw broken glass on the floor and yell “iPhone over here!” 

 Breaking Down the Doors - Roughly one hundred shoppers at a Santa Monica, CA Urban Outfitters smash the glass doors of the entrance while rushing to get in. You’d think people with one track minds would be able to walk in single file. 

Shooting for Space - Two people were shot outside of a Walmart in Tallahassee, FL  in a dispute over a parking space. If they were smart, they would’ve scouted the area in advance and set land mines on the desired spots.

Don’t Weigh Me Down - Perhaps the funniest in this year’s roster, several reports have come in regarding parents leaving their infants and toddlers unattended inside and outside of stores during this year’s Black Friday. Should’ve had that abortion. Kids only slow you down.

Making the Future a Better Place

Maybe it’s just me, but I was disappointed with the stats from this year’s Black Friday. Don’t get me wrong, it had it’s fair share of violence, mayhem and disorderly conduct, yet it felt as though something was missing, especially compared to 2011’s glorious destruction. The Romans had the Colosseum. We have Black Friday and it’s never going to be memorable if we don’t up the ante each year. How do we make an annual event so rife with greed and violence even more decadent and depraved? Glad you asked. I have a few ideas to make 2013’s Black Friday the best one yet:

• Distribute bottled water laced with 2C-I to everyone in line one hour before the store opens. 

• Adorn all store workers in knight armor wrapped with barbed wire. This will protect the store employee while seriously injuring the shoppers. Someone who’s working always has priority over someone who’s shopping. 

• Require stores around the country to replace their fluorescent bulbs with red strobe lights. 

• Pass out rusty gardening tools and pamphlets detailing vulnerable body parts to all shoppers. 

• Require all shoppers to wear a target on their chest and back. 

• Place a lottery to determine three stores in each county that will be tear-gassed during the height of the Black Friday feeding frenzy. 

• Play tribal war drums over the loud speakers in place of normal holiday music.

• Arm the entrance of the store with snipers. Anyone stupid enough to camp outside of a store for over a week deserves nothing. 

2013 can be a turning point in Black Friday history. With a little effort and creativity, we can solve the Black Friday problem and thin out the population of bottom feeders that go along with it. What about 2014? What will we do when there’s too few psychotic, scavenging shoppers left to make a decent Black Friday death show? Good question. It’s a common fact that the intellectually deficient have litters of babies. When the parents of these infants perish for the goodness of our entertainment there is only one course of action to take - Razor Blade Toddler Cage Match! Let’s see those sissy Walmart rioters compete with that.

Food for Thought - A Serious Ethical Quandry

Earlier this week I was thinking about the movie “The Box.” I haven’t seen it, but from what I understand it’s about a married couple who will get millions of dollars by opening a box. If the box is opened someone will die. This seems like an ethical question worth pondering. A person’s life is comprised of memories, actions, dreams and so forth. All of that could be wiped away in an instant. Whatever effect the person could’ve had on the world and the lives of the people they could’ve encountered would also be ripped away. On the other hand, every person has a reptilian brain stem that would gladly step on others for survival in order to keep living (or even just to get further along). Which side would win in a mental arm wrestle - the outer cortex that can feel and empathize or the brain's core that only cares about survival?

This got me thinking about a crucial ethical question I feel I may someday have to face:

Would I allow someone to die for a cheeseburger?

There are no easy answers when pressed with a question that tests the dualistic nature of the human mind. First off, I think quality is a major deciding factor. Is this a cheap, ninety-nine cent cheeseburger I can get at any fast food restaurant? Or is it a home cooked burger with thick, premium beef grilled barely passed the point of medium rare. Is the meat lightly seasoned and blanketed with fresh cut cheddar cheese? Is there sizzling bacon resting atop the cheese in an “X marks the spot” position? Are there absolutely NO vegetables on it? What about the bun? Is it freshly baked? If all of these conditions apply, I’m leaning towards the cheeseburger. 

What about the quality of the person? Are they someone who makes the world a better place to live in? Do they perform amazing work in their chosen field? Even if they’re just an all around polite, intelligent and funny person, that should be enough to make me choose life over lunch. 

And yet, what if they’re none of these things? What if they’re stupid, passive aggressive, smug, loud and preachy? Perhaps they’re a child molester or one of those people who scams old folks out of their life savings. What if I just plain don’t like them? 

Providing the first set of characteristics describe the potential death victim, I’ll reluctantly pass on the cheeseburger. If, however, the second set are what I’m faced with, I would gladly eat the sandwich and make the world a better place. 

Where am I when this choice is presented to me? Am I downtown? Am I in the middle of Death Valley? This could change the outcome dramatically. If I’m in the middle of a city where a cheeseburger is not only possible, but comes in variety, I might have to say no to the offer. In contrast, let’s say that I’m fifty miles from the nearest town in the middle of nowhere and I don’t have a car. What then? I’m certainly not walking fifty miles for a cheeseburger. That would be preposterous! Someone would have to die. 

At what time of the day would this occur? I don’t like to eat too much in the morning. It slows me down and makes me feel heavy throughout the day. Of course I could wrap up the burger, put it in the fridge and reheat it later, but cheeseburgers always taste better fresh. Assuming the ultimatum was placed before noon, I would not accept the cheeseburger. If I was given the choice at night and I hadn’t eaten all day, then I’m not so sure. I can’t say what I would do in that situation. Hunger makes people rash and illogical and I’m no exception to the rule. I do know that I would not want to be the guy facing potential death with a hungry me looking at them. 

Back to quality. What about the quality of death? If I chose the cheeseburger and the person got a quick bullet to the temple, would that be so bad? Everyone dies eventually. To take this point further, what if the person’s natural death, years later, was far worse than the fast, semi-painless gunshot? What if, for instance, the person lived on only to get fucked to death by a horse? Even if the person cured cancer in their lifetime, they would forever be remembered as that guy who got anally horseshoed into an early grave. If this were the case, I think I would be doing the person a favor by eating the cheeseburger. 

Perhaps, like all great ethical questions, there isn’t supposed to be an answer. What matters is thinking in different directions and escaping a stagnant point of view. Would I let someone die for a cheeseburger? I don’t know, maybe. Well, probably. It would depend on the circumstances. I can’t really say for sure and I don’t think anyone else could either. Further pontification of this subject sounds fun, but now I’m hungry. If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to eat tacos.

Forecasts for a Self-Censoring Society

“You can’t say that!”

Whenever I hear someone say that I can’t say something, it makes me want to say it. The idea that a word or concept is off limits seems paramount to the principals of a totalitarian social order. Yet, more often than not, people in a seemingly free and democratic society will not only choose to NOT talk or think about something, but insist that others follow suit. There’s even a Wiki page dedicated to brainwashing yourself into not thinking. How can a species tout the intellectual progression of scientific discovery on one hand and attempt to restrict certain areas of mental wandering with the other? In other words, why would someone willingly not think about something? Has not thinking ever led to anything? Did Alexander Graham Bell invent the telephone by not thinking about communication and distance?

I don’t understand people who are offended by anything or spend their lives in a state of perpetual outrage. Being offended is an initial reaction that emerges when surprise mingles with revulsion. Think about what offends you for five minutes. If you’re still offended, you’re also defective. Your mind has failed to break down the offending subject in any rational way and it will always be a scary monster that tortures your conscious and subconscious mind alike. If something exists, nature has deemed it permissible to exist. Nature will not adapt itself to a person’s feelings or sensibilities. In fact, a species doesn’t prove itself fit for survival until it adapts to nature. Only someone with a sense of entitlement would expect the world and all it’s inhabitants to change just for them. 

As absurd as it may seem, there are such people. Completely ignoring the first amendment, they champion censorship causes and hail emotion over logic. My ears ring with promises that everything will be wonderful if we could just get all the bad words and ideas to go away forever. Words and ideas hurt. Nothing is sadder than a preventable tear. 

Stripped of their crowd pleasing causes, the rhetoric of self-proclaimed altruists and humanitarians mirrors the tenets of the FCC. Stopsexistremarks.org is a site that spends tireless hours instructing other people how to think and speak. They’re gracious enough to outline paternally (maternally?) condescending propaganda on what is okay to say and what isn’t. Abandon what you think you know about manners and inhale their wisdom:

“Appropriate Challenge: Demanding that a woman politician explain her position on a key issue.”

“Sexist Remark: Calling a woman politician loud, shrill, unattractive, or pushy”

What if she is being loud? By that I mean what if her voice is reaching beyond decibels appropriate for two people having a serious debate? No, apparently it’s still being sexist, even when she’s literally talking loudly. And if she’s using her shrill, loud voice to force her opinions on you? No, it’s not okay to say she’s pushy. Never. All you can do is demand that she explain her position on a key issue. Then she can use her loud, shrill voice to repeat her pushy opinions and indoctrinate you into thinking just like her. Anything else would be sexist. 

The Softening of Language

Words like nigger, faggot and retard are generally seen as socially unacceptable and never okay to say. No, not even if you’re referencing the words or quoting someone who said them. If you have a clever pun or joke involving the slurs mentioned above you can forget it. It’s not funny. There are never circumstances where those words can be uttered with comedic results. It’s simply not possible. Just forget it and don’t even think of laughing. Laughter is hatred and hatred isn’t funny.

Knowing that erasing an idea can take time, censors in our society have chosen to gradually wear concepts away by getting rid of the words that represent them. Ridiculously childish euphemisms such as “n-word” and “r-word” have plagued our lexicon in the name of compassion. You can still reference the idea, but not have to say the word. After all, what fun is conversation if you can’t feel safe and restricted? Now people can think and speak without the guilt!

Why someone would feel guilty for thinking or saying something is unknown to me. Perhaps they actually did something in their past that requires them to transfer that feeling of remorse onto every thought in their current life. Whatever the reason may be, it seems as though they don’t realize the context of the word is the driving force behind it’s meaning. Seriously, just say the word. You sound like a little kid that has to say “f-word” because you’re too scared to say “fuck.”

Banning Words

It has always struck me as hilarious that a majority of people condemn book burning, but give a hearty thumbs up to word banning. What do you think books are made of (besides paper, you literal-minded hole puncher)? Apparently, it’s okay to ban words if those words are used to shame a slut. Shame is another concept I don’t get. People have tried to make me feel shame at one time or another. When this occurred, I would laugh and declare all the reasons they should commit suicide. The only time I’ve ever felt shame is when I knew I did something that runs against my own thoughts or instincts. The feeling has never seized me in reaction to other people’s opinions. If you feel shame because of what someone else says then you are weak of mind and easily swayed by public opinion. Shame on you. 

In the article linked above, the “writer” rants about the pill-popping, blubbering whale vagina Rush Limbaugh before the article devolves into a typical "life's not fair" power-cry session. This is probably because it’s more fashionable to whine about an out of touch DJ than it is to condemn rappers who use “bitch” and “ho” endlessly in their lyrics. The article’s writer even suggests that words are responsible for rape and that rape is smiled upon by that ominous and never seen boogeyman known as the Patriarchy:

“And where “slut” will maintain its power over us as long as rape and other forms of sexual violence go unpunished, as long as our reproductive rights are undermined and as long as our reproductive health options are limited (the very issue that forced Fluke to speak out in the first place).”

That sentence just kept going, didn’t it? This Just In: rape and sexual violence only go unpunished when the perpetrator has money and connections in the judicial system. In fact, this statement applies to all laws, including murder. The rest of us go to jail for our transgressions against the law. Also, if rape and sexual violence go unpunished, how is it that people get arrested and incarcerated for rape and sexual assault? 

Returning to the point of this article, I doubt a rapist would decide to rape someone because they’re free to say the word “slut.” I don’t put on wooden shoes and dance around my apartment because I can say “clogs.”

Hate Speech

To me hate speech seems rude, but so do most people. Can we start banning human beings while we’re at it? I hate a majority of humanity because they’re utterly stupid. I can’t fathom how they’re still alive. Should I be banned from expressing my hate of them? This is the point where people would tell me that it’s not the same thing and hate speech is only attacked by anti-discrimination groups because it demoralizes and encourages violence towards certain groups of people. Really? What if stupid people got organized (unlikely) and starting lobbying against what they felt was hate speech? People, because they can’t think for themselves, would begin condemning those who spoke out against stupidity. I think it would sound something like this:

“Hey! You can’t call someone the s-word. Just because they’re brains function at a slower level and they don’t feel the need to think before they speak, does not give you the right to label them with that hateful word!”

Professor Waldron (I don’t know his background and based on his terrible writing I don’t care to research) even wrote a pro-censorship book entitled “The Harm in Hate Speech.” He epitomizes the essence of everyone I’ve ever heard who thinks banning words is okay as long as they’re unpleasant:

“Hate speech undermines this public good . . . . It does this not only by intimating discrimination and violence, but by reawakening living nightmares of what this society was like . . . .  [I]t creates something like an environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison, accumulating here and there, word by word, so that eventually it becomes harder and less natural for even the good-hearted members of the society to play their part in maintaining this public good.”

What is public good? What defines someone as good-hearted? In addition to the illusory merits of “goodness” and the ominously vague usage of the phrase “public good,” Waldron states a point that has been repeated like a prayer in censor circles - hate speech leads to violence. 

So what? Honestly, what doesn’t lead to violence? Animals don’t have slurs to debase each other (at least, none that we know of) and they manage to kill one another quite effectively. The projection of hate and shedding of personal responsibility is always practiced by people who wish to ennoble humanity above it’s status of a stupid, violent animal. That’s right - it’s not the person’s fault for being violent, the word made them do it! People only need a reason. The idea behind that reason can be anything and often means nothing. Acts of violence are committed based on race, religion, gender, etc. However, people also assault McDonald’s staff over a lack of chicken nuggets and riot for shoes. If hate speech were eradicated and made illegal, people would start attacking each other because the sun changes positions throughout the day. 

A Look Towards the Future

What does the future look like in a society where you can’t say or do anything without offending someone? When the general consensus is that you can’t wear a costume or practice a free market economy by selling unpopular knick knacks, where do we go? Allow me to split the skull of a fawn, scramble it’s mind and drink from it’s memories. My own perceptions are sharpening and pointing towards the distant unknown. Now I click clackers tied to my fingers and chant the mantra of the long-bearded blind men of Kalar'ar. Yes, I see it now. The vision is washing over me and I can clearly visualize what lies ahead. Take a look into the future:

• Talking will not be permitted unless you write on a form what you wish to say and fax it to the nearest state office. Since mail will continue to suck in the future as it does in the present, your stamped letter of approval to speak may take some time. 

• All slurs and hateful words will be banned from use. In addition, nobody can use a noun unless it has either a positive or neutral connotation. 

• In addition to banning all slurs and hate words, it is also illegal to say any word that begins with the letter “N” and ends with the letter “R.” This includes words such as neighbor, nagger, nibbler and never. 

• The word “no” will be banned, as it brings to mind rejection and hurt feelings, which are the inspiration for banning words in the first place. Incidentally, rape will cease to exist. 

• Singing and dancing will require a permit and a thirty day waiting period. 

• Any child (or adult) who notices that people have differences and comments on said differences will be taken to the nearest mental care unit. Once there, they will be surgically fitted with blurring glasses that make all citizens and objects appear as grayish blobs. 

• All books will be made illegal and books found will be incinerated. Reading will take place on a portable computer screen where positive, socially approved words and statements float against a back-drop of clouds and rainbows.

• Anyone who suggests that they are not part of the “human family” will be banished to the out lands where they will live among or be killed by cannibals and mutants. 

• People will no longer be able to regard each other’s genitalia without violating the law of censored words. As a result, sex will only be permitted to take place in absolute darkness. Commentary or analysis during or after intercourse will lead to incarceration for up to seven years. 

• Using the word “hate” in any context will be punishable by death. No exceptions. 

And there you have it. Keep your mouth shut and your eyes to the ground as you shuffle towards a brighter tomorrow. In the meantime, I’d like to say that if you are seriously bothered by a word or idea there is something wrong with you. If you feel persecuted because somebody in the world said something you’ve obviously had an easy and comfortable life. If your biggest problem is something someone said as opposed to something someone did, maybe you need some real problems. Human nature will never change. Compassion and understanding will never sweep the land. World peace will never happen. Censoring words and ideas will never make your fantasies come true. People will always say things that other people don’t like. Adapt. Live with it. Grow up. 

Attack of the Bland - Copyright and Condescension

There’s a site called Daily Exhaust that makes me envy the illiterate and blind. When I was first notified by my wife of an, ahem, “article” criticizing her blog, I thought I would feel intense, bowel-twisting annoyance. Instead it seemed as though my bowels, and every other part of my body, were joining together in a collective yawn. The site’s layout resembles a typical blog template, which would be fine except it’s supposed to be an actual website, not a blog. Kudos to the designer. It’s beige background almost resembles the walls of an abandoned house stained with Syphilis infected piss and nicotine residue, but not quite. The site is too bland for that image to fit. Before I mention the writing, I should note the words. This is important to nobody but myself, however, the font color is gray and the text links are orange, which were the colors of my high school. I now have two reasons to hate the colors orange and gray. 

In his article “Ownership & Copyright” Michael Mulvey blathers on for what seems like an eternity about what he perceives to be copyright infringement from Vintagegal. Later in the article he maunders into a boring, self-involved paragraph where he begins rambling about inline linking (the only part of the article he put a source for - a Wikipedia page). 

How can I describe the writing without having to relive it? Imagine reading instructions in a vehicle repair manual from the 1960‘s that has no actual information and smacks of self-righteousness. Try tasting stale, unsalted tortilla chips wrapped in wax paper and you’ll get a clearer picture. Hear an automated machine reading the factory warranty of a VCR and you’ll be even closer. There is NO personality or original voice in his writing. Reading his flat, dry prose is like popping a handful of Thorazine, shotgunning a forty of NyQuil and watching a speck of dust float in the air. Here’s a sample sentence from the article:

“This is similar to a DJ who creates a carefully curated playlist of tracks by other

musicians and thinks it's ok to "watermark" a voiceover saying their DJ name on top of the tracks they've arranged.”

I hate every syllable in this sentence. Ever hear of a comma? How about a period? Nothing would make me happier than to erase this clumsily written analogy from my memory. A power drill to the frontal lobe of my brain sounds mighty refreshing at this moment. 

Okay, that’s enough skylarking. Let’s get to the actual content of the article, shall we? 

To kick things off, there is a “Short Version.” It’s a two sentence statement that precedes the actual article. At first it seems like he has enough courtesy to spare the world his opinionated diatribe. Unfortunately, the article keeps going from there into a longer version titled “TLDR Version.” Why aren’t internet acronyms ever truly applicable? It should have been called TDHL (Too Dull Had to Leave). Here’s the short version:

“You can't watermark images of artwork or photographs you don't own the copyrights to. No, even if you buy a book and scan the images.”

He’s referring to a post Vintagegal made entitled “Here We Go Again” where she responds to claims of copyright infringement. It’s important to note that many of those concerned citizens voicing their interest in protecting intellectual property have no problem downloading original content from other blogs and websites, nor do they take issue with reposting said content to their own blog as though it was theirs (this isn’t an assumption, I looked at their blogs). 

I won’t post Vintagegal’s entire response, but I think this part gets to the heart of what she was saying and what Michael was referencing:

“I can physically hold these pictures, so yes I own them. I paid for them. I bid on them. I buy things and take the time to scan and edit them to share. And since people constantly re-post them, yes I will watermark them.”

Just for fun, let’s look once more at what Michael wrote in his short version. Back and to the left:

“You can't watermark images of artwork or photographs you don't own the copyrights to. No, even if you buy a book and scan the images.”

Not to overdo it, but let’s look at a key sentence in Vintagegal’s post. Back and to the left:

“I buy things and take the time to scan and edit them to share.”

Notice anything? It seems that Michael forgot (or just plain ignored) the part of the sentence where Vintagegal mentions editing. How much editing does it take to make an image into a different work of art than from when it started? There seems to be a lot of debate about this online. From what I’ve seen, the consensus is that there needs to be a drastic difference from the original image to the newly edited work. Since Vintagegal and I inhabit the same cubicle, I can say without hesitation that there is a very drastic difference. The photo may be the same person in the same pose wearing the same outfit, but by the time she’s finished editing the images look as though they were taken by a different photographer. At least to me they do, but that’s just my opinion and up for debate. What isn’t an opinion is the fact that they are different from when they started. The variations of brightness, sharpness, re-colorization, re-sizing, cropping and contrast bring a new life into the picture. 

Of course, if the copyright of the image is still in play, all this is moot, right? Yes, definitely. However, if you assume that all copyright is currently active you must be a 20th Century Man with a 1st century brain. The standard rule in the United States is that copyright is held for the duration of the creator’s life plus an additional seventy years after their death. There are exceptions, however. 

Unlike Michael, I think if you’re going to claim something you should have some facts to back up your statements. Even just a few. Something...it’s better than nothing. Also, unlike Michael, I don’t believe Wikipedia is a reliable source to link to, nor does any other serious writer in the known universe. On the Cornell University website there is an excellent timeline of copyright and expiration. Please click the link to see the entire copyright timeline. Here are just a few of the time periods pertaining to copyright expiration:

• Works from before 1923 have no copyright and are part of the public domain. 

• Works published from 1923 to 1989 without copyright notice are part of the public domain.

• Works published from 1923 to 1963 with copyright notice, but no copyright renewal are part of the public domain. 

If someone makes drastic edits to an image whose copyright is expired, does that warrant them the authority to watermark said image? And what if the publication from which the edited image originated has been defunct for years and has NO active copyright? Would that make it okay? I would say so. In fact, given that there are so many thieves online, I would even go so far as to encourage it, so long as the copyright is inactive and the image has been edited/altered. This should go without saying. Contrary to the popular assumptions of lemming-brained Tumblr users and Michael Mulvey, Vintagegal DOES NOT watermark everything she posts. In fact, most of what she posts doesn’t have her watermark on it. This should tell you something, but I’m sure it doesn’t. Arguing basic points with imbeciles can yield little or no results. So instead of hammering the point further, I’ve decided to make fun of Michael some more. Check out these dumb quotes from his article:

“You do not own the copyrights to those images. The right to copy is not yours. Is this sinking in?”

Neither does anyone else, Michael. Not if the copyright has been expired. And once these VINTAGE images are edited, they become a new work of art. Is THIS sinking in?

“I'll even be the first one to admit I have a lot to learn on the subject.”

And yet you’ll prattle on about something you, at best, have a rudimentary understanding of? Maybe next time you don’t know much about something, you should do research on it before exhausting your non-informed opinions. Or don’t write about it. Or don’t write at all. That would be awesome!

“In my experience, if your intentions are good and you properly credit and link back to your sources, most people don't have a problem when you repost their content.”

Please explain the good intentions involved in being smug and condescending towards someone you don’t know regarding a subject you’ve proven yourself to have a very limited knowledge of. 

I’d like to close by mentioning that Tumblr is bursting with thieves and plagiarists who violate copyright laws in ways Vintagegal has never even come close to. So why was she singled out? It could be because Michael saw a quick reply to a stupid question as the launching point for his bitchy, fact-free discharge of an article. Or it could be that he knows her blog gets tons of hits. Maybe he thought his own ho hum site would get more attention if he wrote about her and tagged his article with her name. I honestly can’t say, but I think it’s funny that like so many of Vintagegal’s nay-sayers he has to concede that the blog has interesting content and is engaging to look at (unlike his site). Too bad Michael and the rest of the the herd don’t have the manners keep their passive aggressive nit-picking to themselves and simply enjoy the pretty pictures. Like everyone else in the world, he seems to think his opinion matters, completely unaware that an opinion is just a piece of shit that lives inside of your head. Try keeping it there. 

Note: Unfortunately, the U.S. Copyright website was down for holiday maintenance during the creation of this article, so I wasn’t able to get a direct quote. I did get a chance to peruse it before it went down and it is the best resource for copyright law. If interested, check out the website once it’s back up http://www.copyright.gov/laws/

Source: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm